The high speed trains for short trips in Europe are great. London-Paris, Paris-Cologne or Brussels, etc. 200 mph and 3-4 hrs on a train is fine and they’re much more comfortable than an airplane, plus you don’t have the security and check in hassles. We don’t have major cities located that close together though unless it’s in the Northeast and they’re amply served by trains already. Nobody is going to take a train from New York to Chicago, it would take too long, they’re always going to fly. Likewise nobody takes a train from Madrid to Stockholm either, that would be silly because you’d spend a couple of days on a train. Europeans will fly that also.
The advantage of the trains in Europe is that they run on time. The stations are free of drug addict homeless loonies. The stations are in the middle of the cities. You get off the train and walk to your hotel. Plus there are POLICE everywhere. So, you feel safe.
I hear Penn Station and Union Station are great places IF you want to score some smack.
Even in California there are flights every 45 to 60 minutes from SFO to LAX, OAK to LAX, SJC to LAX and all the other airports in the LA Area (John Wayne, Burbank, etc). Flights are always on time, are cheap, and fast. There is going to be almost ZERO demand for the “high speed rail” from the Bay Area to the LA Area. Who wants to make 10 to 20 stops between the two areas? And every year, “fast” gets redefined to less fast than the previous year. It’s a $100 billion boondoggle.